NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 21a0018n.06 No. 20-3233 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED OKSANA VASILYEVNA IVANUSHCHAK, ) Jan 11, 2021 ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) ) BEFORE: COOK, GRIFFIN, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Oksana Vasilyevna Ivanushchak petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. As set forth below, we DENY Ivanushchak’s petition for review. I. Ivanushchak, a native and citizen of Ukraine, entered the United States without inspection, purportedly in September 2003. In September 2004, Ivanushchak filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on her membership in the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, a political party supporting Ukrainian independence. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently served Ivanushchak with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging her with removability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Ivanushchak appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded removability as charged. No. 20-3233, Ivanushchak v. Rosen After a merits hearing, the IJ denied Ivanushchak’s application and ordered her removal to Ukraine. The IJ found that Ivanushchak was not a credible witness and that she had failed to establish timely filing of her asylum application. The IJ went on to find that Ivanushchak had failed to demonstrate her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. Ivanushchak appealed the IJ’s decision. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s findings and dismissed Ivanushchak’s appeal. Ivanushchak then filed a petition for review of the BIA’s order, which this court denied. Ivanushchak v. Holder, No. 11-4389 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013) (order). Five years later, Ivanushchak filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The BIA denied Ivanushchak’s motion to reopen. And Ivanushchak did not seek this court’s review. Approximately four months later, Ivanushchak filed a second motion to reopen her removal proceedings, this time based on changed country conditions in Ukraine. According to Ivanushchak, the conditions for parishioners of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow Patriarchy (UOC-MP) have significantly worsened since her hearing because the government is working to eradicate the practice of the religion by pressuring members to join the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). Ivanushchak sought reopening to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting that, as a parishioner of the UOC-MP, she would not be able to practice her religion freely and would face harm upon returning to Ukraine. The BIA denied Ivanushchak’s motion to reopen because she had “not offered reasonably specific information showing a real threat of persecution.” This timely petition for review followed. II. We review the BIA’s denial of a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals